rinron

probably because it Depends, If you dont know its safer not to. long answer (keep in mind i live in canada, im not a professional, this is just what i learned and trust, keep in mind above) - As long as no wire/bar exceeds its max Amp your safe no matter how many things are plugged in or how long of a daisy chain, the max amp is usually listed. - all devices should list the max amp they use, add up the amp's of all the devices connected to that wire and if its below your safe. - if your breaker is 15 amp, virtually all normal extensions/power bars are rated for at least 15 amps which means doesnt matter what you do the breaker should* flip before any damage is done - if breaker is above 15 amp most surge protectors have protection that will trigger if they exceed their max, most basic "splitters" and extension cords dont, eg if they dont have a switch or reset button they are pretty much guaranteed to not have this protection, be extra carful how much you load on those. some good rules of thumb to keep in mind, look for imprints or labels that list amps, smaller wires can handle less, damaged wires can handle less then they did before and shouldn't be used, if a wire or connector warms when its in use its overloaded reduce the load on it, especially if it warms quickly. here is a video that i liked that talks about it as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_q-xnYRugQ

a part of everyone knows both a major cause and way of improving loneliness yet we lie to ourselves and look to science to give us an excuse continue to ignore what we know to be true. We have built a world that revolves around money and almont everything that gets built that wants to grow no matter how pure in intentions succumbs and instead of using peoples desire for connection to actually make connections with people perverts it in a way to make more money. And we let this happen to us because its easy, it feels good in the moment they are careful to give us just enough of a taste of a real connection to keep us coming back but not letting us develop real connections that would "graduate" us to real human connections that would reduce our reliance on them thus reducing their profits.

If Television stayed live, local, honest, people you seen around your local town, it would encourage engagement. youtube could have focused on sharing videos with friends, could have ignored likes/dislikes and didnt focus on popularity and parasocial relationships. Facebook could have encouraged not on finding, adding, expanding, friends and engaging on the platform, but instead encourage real connections by encouraging prodding for real world meetups suggestions on games to play in person, finding people who like to do the similar things and suggesting times and places they can do it together with a focus on existing friends and connections. And not showing as much on what people have done but what they can do together.

Its not that these things aren't possible on the networks now but its not how these sites use their influence and primary resources, and really it would be stupid for them to do, because they are businesses and their goal is to make money, they will only improve peoples lives as long as it doesn't get in the way of making money. Part of use realize what they are doing we know they put profits above us, but they deliver what we expect a little bit of happiness a little bit of connection, we know it wont satisfy us but its easy, real easy with no risk, why put effort in for maybe a solid human connection when you can have that quick and easy hit right now.

If you read this far, why is scientific studies, or science in general not going to fix this? Because even if there is perfect research that spells out exactly the issue and lays out exactly how to not be lonely 2 things are going to happen.

1. Companies will exploit it in a way to make money if not right away then over time putting us right back to where we were. 2. We wont do it because we prefer the easy/fast way even if its worse.

this isnt going to change, its not that we cant have real connections, its just we have never had so many easy alternatives before, for a lot of people being alone has become the default we grew up with instead of the exception.

It taught me that most bedrooms dont have enough air flow, it helped me figure out just how much i need the window open or not closing the door which improved my sleep. Also helped me see the importance and notice the effect of having a air filter, and fine tune location and fan speed. I find that air quality is something you get used to and dont realize the effect it has on you unless you pay attention and experiment. its not something i pay attention to every day i could probably use it 1 week 2 times a year and have 90% of the benefit. That being said a lot of people probably live in better more well designed places with less issues than i have.

For a lot of companies they choose sms for no other reason than it really limits spam and cuts down on fake accounts. People are conditioned to for the most part to be free with their phone number. Making it pretty much the only identifier that cant be easily and without cost or human effort changed(its not too hard and often normal to block voip numbers) Sure you can say well then also require some other form of authentication. these companies are trying to make money and go to a lot of effort to reduce even the slightest friction to new customers. Besides once they have sms and 98% are happy with that why put more work in? The real problem though is what other choice do they have? Yes you and i would put the effort in to both secure and properly manage better systems but when the vast majority would quickly forget or loose any other method. They have to make a system that is "secure" for them anyway, why implement other systems(yes i know you and i think it would be worth it for us but maybe the bean counters dont).

Its completely understandable that the average person THINKS that sms is secure, everyone depends on their phones, uses it for very personal, private and sensitive business calls. even without tech companies using it for auth it would be exploited, just not as much. Unfortunately it would just take an incredible amount of cooperation, expense and growing pains to properly secure the telecom network. They are extremely interconnected legacy systems that are designed with the assumption there is no security besides trust. that being said they could improve things a whole lot more if they were able to verify their customers better on support calls or at least had higher security options you could enroll in. So they didnt put people who cared about security with the ones who cant even keep track of their own account numbers.

Personally without governments coming together to implement a digital "secure" citizen identification system (also very scary) probably the best we can hope for and i think google now allows is after its verified by phone remove it as a authentication and recovery option and setup multiple hardware security keys/passkeys. ya people will still be idiots and use sms even when there are better options but at least some of us can be secure.

ugh ya i hate that. and to me the worst part is maybe there is someone who would put up with that so they dont need a computer for zoom, but no where on the spec sheet or description of the product is there a way to know how responsive it is or how good the interface is. Sometimes by the time there is enough reviews to know what its like before you buy they have the next version and supposedly its faster but you dont know until its too late.

The mistake this article makes is it doesn't consider things outside of their perspective. Before i go into more detail many of the things they think have degraded and gotten worse i never even touched, facebook, twitter, crypto currencies to me they weren't good ideas that degraded. They were defective, degenerate yet mostly inevitable ideas doomed to excite and provide glimpses of amazing utility but will overall degrade and manipulate society as a whole. They didnt get worse they just became fully utilized.

but when talking about what i consider legit products: 1. The difference may make something improved to one person but worse for someone else - i find most times the older os's faster with windows and android. part of that reason is the include graphical transitions and animations when doing things. turning them off makes them feel fast like the older versions. there are more features, hardware support, ect one person may dislike not need those new features or animations but most do like them 2. Adapting to changing circumstances - When google started out no body knew or maybe even had a strong reason to manipulate google results. Google itself might be significantly better but the internet and people using it has changed its not the Tech that degraded its the people using and manipulating it creating new challenges that were never faced before. 3. In the past it may have worked better for you but now it is more sustainable/better for everyone - in a extreme example during the dot com boom i could make money ($20-$30) just by having a ad bar at the bottom of my screen for a few hours a day(even when i wasnt on it). But the only way it worked was because a bunch of idiot investors were loosing a ton of money. Has advertising got worse? to me sure but in reality they just went to a reasonable business model as much as i would prefer to get paid good money for having ad's on my screen.

All that being said are there companies who make tech worse just for greed and profit absolutely, but its not a black and white situation and there is a lot more factors than people usually realize.

one of my "it got worse" but not really experiences is with phones when phones were analog for my normal use case of making local phone calls when there were just land lines calls, were always clear no latency issues and extremely rarely had issues. now with digital and voip there can be delay's and choppiness and audio cutting in and out and really low quality audio and i sometimes complain about how it used to just work. but really i can now call anywhere in the world for free, have cheap and easy to setup phones with amazing features not depend on one phone company and can easily switch between. so ya in the most common calling situation its worse but overall its so so much better.

Here is a really great video that goes over the history https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yRGvMgieEU Sometimes we think about the technical reasons and forget of the human and the developmental process that can sometimes have an effect on how things are today. spoiler for the video - its because too many 110v light bulbs were already in place by the time 220v ones were made and it was too expensive/difficult to change. kind of reminds me of why the US never switched to metric.

I was using urbackup with ext4 and was having issues that caused corruption and couldn't figure out why, seen a recommendation to use urbackup with BTRFS and have had no corruption since. I have used ext4 in every other use case and had no issue so im not saying ext4 is at fault but so far BTRFS has worked great for me.

i love the idea of the site but i would like to see one change. Instead of adding a product when it breaks, let someone add it when they buy it then send a yearly reminder of the products they have added and if they want to update their status. this would have the benefit of: -tracking % of product failures -finding out if they function longer then they are needed. -finding out which products outlast others before they get to the point failure -potentially notify/warn users of potential issues that come up to before theirs breaks

I think a lot of people dont care enough to upload info just to help product designers, some will do it to help out other consumers, but if you can provide more value to the person with the product you want info on that should get you the most engagement.

if you follow the motivation of the different groups the motivation is the same for everyone and its best to focus on people rather than entities. business owners have an insatiable desire for profits and are willing to sacrifice society and individuals to do so. Consumers value saving money over supporting local or dont see the value in the local offerings real or perceived (big companies have both economies of scale and generally more effective advertising) suppliers crater better to big businesses because they make them more money and exert more power over them. a more personal one on one contact of a small business is a pain to them and takes more resources. local politicians are presented with a choice of getting nothing or allowing them to go to an area that will, and then they get nothing. not to mention potential personal kickbacks, short term positive press with the consequences being on the next politician.

The root of the problem is society valuing their own money/things over people. one person or organization changing wouldn't change things significantly, and the rest in the chain will probably pressure them back. Sadly society is moving further away from valuing people. online shopping, crypto currency, automation as much as i love all these advancements they enable and increases the value of things over people, and in turn a concentration of wealth and power.

The title really isn't exaggerating, they are praising criminal behavior. The only thing is their example of the token $PEOPLE wasnt a ponzi scheme because it had a propose but it could easily have been if someone realized what could happen. Other people looking at the results of it will likely try to copy the process to make actual ponzi scheme's. How he justifies it sounds exactly like an argument a scammer would use to justify their theft. A scammer might reason "i didnt take the money they willingly gave it" "I gave them value in the intricate story/passionate love letters/made them feel important/gave them purpose" "some people made money and they could have been one of them if they got out in time"

at the end he makes the argument that we no longer sell things but narratives hold value. The issue with his argument is informed consent. Informed is the key here he says that people buying the $PEOPLE token know its worthless except for being part of history. Thats not accurate real money was initially paid so many people will assign a value to it since it cost money despite what its current real value is. They would also be a part of it whether they put in a cent or a $1000 into it. it went so high in value because people speculated that their money would get them more future value in it than other more traditional options. but wait then its just a speculative investment like other crypto. Not really scammers use the narrative to deceive people of the real value. people pay for the equivalent of scams eg escorts, escape rooms, romance novel's if you convince them through a narrative that its real they pay far more.

i wrote too much already but his idea of paying people on completion of an action online is a refining and progression of the already damaging effect of targeted adverting and influencers. How much worse do you think scam advertisements and foreign and domestic manipulation could be if they could dangle a carrot instead of just a picture or video on the side?

I think any content creator dreams of making a simple narrative worth millions of dollars or being able to dangle money in front of their viewers to make them dance but as far as im concerned we have gotten too close to that reality already and doing so will just make things worse.

Their fix sounds like its a reaction to some specific instances which is good it will improve things but its hardly a fix. they touch on it briefly that the previous solution wasn't working because " In effect, this protocol asks busy health-care staff to slow down, be more careful — which would be a great idea, if it worked." the biggest improvement for this error and others would be putting less pressure on medical staff to rush. I cant see that ever happening though. In the i.t. industry we know that to reduce failure you need as independent as possible redundancy and checks. in i would think in the case of surgery it could mean 2 qualified people to mark the location without being influenced by the other and referencing different sources. eg if its something like an eye and the condition can be noticed by examination one would physically examine and mark with a uv marker the other references a medical record or surgery form and marks, then they shine a uv light on the person and verify that they both marked the same location. ideally the mark should be how the initial cut would be made and different color for each person verifying. and it should be visible at the time of making the cut otherwise your introducing a single point of failure. if there is a situation where there is no area to mark there could be some sort of mask and how its written on the mask that they could mark on and then just before you cut you lift off the section that is being cut. it would have to be a mask that would be very obvious if it was out of position.

the problem isnt value or really consent, its that the photographer cant see the future. it also involves not just value but also cost and risk. Social media and the ability for things to go viral has made it possible for even the most innocent and mundane/valueless media to have a huge impact/cost to the person in it. It could be anxiety and depression triggered by being in a viral meme. A video of a real or perceived mistake normally overlooked and ignored suddenly ruins their career and some relationships.

The subject, just as with the value may have no real way of knowing the cost and risk. most will assume there is no value, cost or risk like virtually every other photo and have no problem with it. Or they will think of those ever so rare photos that they see all the time at the top of their feed and either want far to much in compensation or never allow any photos they cant control taken.

The problem isnt really consent its that the photographer and subject cant predict the future. If the photographer knew the photo would never see general public viewing, win any prizes be seen by the subject or anyone they know. both the photographer and subject wouldn't care about consent. on the other hand if the photographer knew exactly how popular, how much value would be derived from it and the cost it would have on the subject they wouldn't hesitate to get consent and maybe offer some compensation based on the cost the photo would have on the subjects life.

it is however so rare a single photo has significance on anything, that everyone just assumes its not worth getting consent. only photo's where someone expects privacy is it assumed the cost to the subject is usually too high and requires consent.

No company or organization can sustainably stop a determined government request that they continue to operate in financially or physically. It doesn't matter what the company says at some point they will be forced to either shutdown or give in eg lavabit(1). The government can trace and stop the flow of all or most of their money threating their primary motivation for the business. Or they can physically detain people or equipment required to function.

the only way for an entity to never comply with government orders and continue to function is to remain anonymous and their servers accessible only via temporary addresses or tor since static ip's and domains can be taken away. Making it impossible for receiving email and more effort than the average person would want to access. It then becomes a catch 22 as you cant fully trust an anonymous, transient entity since their motivation can never be verified(they could be a honey trap), they can rarely be held accountable if they betray you, and they could be replaced or compelled to comply without anyone knowing(someone part of a visible physical social network could have friends put out a warning if something suspicious happened to them).

What it comes down to is what we already know. they only way to be sure your email provider wont hand over your emails is to run your own email server anonymously. For anyone who cant do that protonmail is still likely the best choice even if its imperfect. plus adding whatever other layers of protection on top you are capable of.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit

One very important thing not mentioned is that the tor exit node could be capturing your traffic or do a MITM attack. Its a great idea for testing but only after you have encryption working, and of course pay special attention to your ssh fingerprints.

As good as it is to see them encouraging the move to ev's. I wonder if it might be a bit premature when 47% of California's power is from natural gas (solar is 2nd at 14%), they import approximately 32% of their total power and they sometimes have rolling blackouts.

The ban would be great news to the existing gas stations as well would be interesting to know how busy they currently are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California

This matches up with how I view Apples corporate thinking. "we know what's best" "the consumer is not to be trusted". Apple limits access to hardware, system settings, they block apps that don't meet moral standards, are "unsafe", or just might cause apple to not make as much money. They do not significantly care what people say they want after all they know best.

A lot of people love not having options and having these decisions made for them.

I would never want a device like that or with something that scans my device, but I think the vast majority of their customers if they even hear about it will think "I trust apple, they know what's best, it wont affect me"

Im ok with apple doing it because i think most apple users will be ok with it. I would not be ok with it if all Android devices started doing it though.

Spammers and scammers already use domains as a disposable commodity creating them or using hacked ones for single campaigns and moving on. Part of filtering based on IPv4 is not only scarcity but accountability. When the owner of the netblock reassigns the ip and its already blacklisted it can create a problem for them and incentivize them to police their own network. Domains are also worse in that its easier to use fake information and be untraceable. its also understandably easier to get a response legal or otherwise from a co-location or isp than a domain registrar. Maybe ipv4 will always be preferred for email just because its more difficult/expensive and therefore less appealing for temporary malicious use.